ADA, Pedestrian Crossings, and partial intersections

[Zmapper]

At new (post-1990) intersections with medians, Right-in, right-out or other turning restrictions, pedestrian crossings of the main arterial are often missing. In a fact chain:

1. A crosswalk exists at every intersection, unless noted. More specifically, Colorado law states: ""Crosswalk" means that portion of a roadway ordinarily included within the prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections". Presumably, a similar definition of a crosswalk exists in other states or municipalities.

2. RiRo and 3/4 movement intersection restrictions do not change the basic fact that an intersection exists, only the vehicular movements permissible.

3. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires pedestrian infrastructure to be accessible, including crosswalks and curb cuts.

As a crosswalk exists at every intersection (unless noted), and as turn restrictions do not change the basic definition of an intersection, and as the ADA requires all pedestrian infrastructure to be accessible, including crosswalks, it would thus logically follow that transportation projects would include curb cuts at all marked and unmarked crosswalks at all intersections, regardless of turning restrictions.

Yet, this is not the case. A few local examples, all constructed relatively recently:
1. https://goo.gl/maps/C3rIa Charles Brockman is missing curb cuts aligned across Timberline.
2. https://goo.gl/maps/O5nY7 Wakerobin is missing an accessible crossing of Shields.
3. https://goo.gl/maps/nFOVk Nickel is missing an accessible crossing of Madison.

In general, are traffic engineers aware of pedestrian impacts at intersections with medians or turning restrictions?

[jeffandnicole]

You need to read the actual laws, along with the definition...

http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/42-4-803.html

Specifically, this: "(3) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk."

So yes, traffic engineers are extremely aware of pedestrian impacts at intersections with medians or turning restrictions.  In all 3 cases you cited, since there's a prohibition of cross traffic, it was probably intended to prohibit pedestrian crossings as well.  And in all 3 cases you cited, when the nearest intersection with signals is only about 700 feet away or less, it was probably determined that a crosswalk wouldn't be safe and is unnecessary at the intersections you posted. 

[Zmapper]

You need to read the actual laws, along with the definition...

http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/42-4-803.html

Specifically, this: "(3) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk."

So yes, traffic engineers are extremely aware of pedestrian impacts at intersections with medians or turning restrictions.  In all 3 cases you cited, since there's a prohibition of cross traffic, it was probably intended to prohibit pedestrian crossings as well.  And in all 3 cases you cited, when the nearest intersection with signals is only about 700 feet away or less, it was probably determined that a crosswalk wouldn't be safe and is unnecessary at the intersections you posted. 

From your link:
"Crossing at other than crosswalks."

Given that the definition states a crosswalk exists at every intersection, and that partial intersections are still intersections, this doesn't apply. Even if it were to apply, none of the intersections linked to are sandwiched between two signalized intersections.

Regardless of what the engineers claim, the state legislature has legislated a crosswalk at every intersection, and the federal government through the ADA requires the aforementioned crosswalks to be accessible, including curb cuts and an unobstructed path across the roadway. Despite the presumed best of intentions of furthering road safety, engineers (or any person) can't unilaterally decide that they won't abide by state and federal law.

[jeffandnicole]

From your link:
"Crossing at other than crosswalks."

Given that the definition states a crosswalk exists at every intersection, and that partial intersections are still intersections, this doesn't apply. Even if it were to apply, none of the intersections linked to are sandwiched between two signalized intersections.

Regardless of what the engineers claim, the state legislature has legislated a crosswalk at every intersection, and the federal government through the ADA requires the aforementioned crosswalks to be accessible, including curb cuts and an unobstructed path across the roadway. Despite the presumed best of intentions of furthering road safety, engineers (or any person) can't unilaterally decide that they won't abide by state and federal law.

The curb cuts and unobstructed pathway are present across the side street.  The intersection is constructed in a manner as to prohibit cross traffic from crossing, mainly due to the closeness of a nearby intersection. 

There are hundreds of examples where pedestrian access is prohibited.  It all depends on the individual features of the intersections.  For the most part, intersections are accessible for pedestrians.  The ones that aren't have good reasons why they aren't.

To add a pedestrian crossing in this area, when a fully signalized intersection exists about 500 feet away, would not be safe.  Understand as well when laws are made and definitions are assigned, the future cannot be predicted.  Engineers develop new methods to move and control traffic, and on occasion exceptions are made.  No doubt one law would be traffic flowing in one direction keeps to the right of traffic flowing in another direction.  But in the case of a DDI, traffic flows the opposite direction.  Technically, this would probably be in violation of some definition in the state's statutes.

I'm sure if you went thru the planning documents for the intersections you stated, there would be discussions of pedestrian access.  In fact, I know there is, because you can clearly see the curb cuts & handicap ramps at the intersections.  If the state law is cited, I wouldn't be surprised that they provide their reasons as to why pedestrian access should not be provided.

Personally, this is a non-issue, especially with an accessible intersection extremely close to the affected area.

[Pink Jazz]

Somewhat related, but some cities here in the Phoenix area are installing new accessible pedestrian signals with audible and vibrotactile (vibrating button with tactile arrow) indications.  These are especially common at the light rail crossings.  When not pressed, the button emits a chirp every second for blind people can find them.  After being pressed, a voice stating "Wait" is heard, with some also indicating the street name after being pressed.  When the pedestrian signal goes into the "Walk" phase, the button begins to vibrate and emits either a rapid tick sound or a speech message stating "Walk Sign Is On".

[Zmapper]

jeffandnicole, I believe you are missing the point. As you imply, the question as to if any of the three (or more numerous) examples qualify as an intersection is not in doubt. Nor is it in doubt that vehicular traffic is not permitted to cross at any of the three examples cited.

What is in doubt is if the engineer who signed off on these (or similar partial intersections) did so in violation of the Americans with Disabilities act. While the engineer may not have intended for pedestrians to cross at any of the three examples cited, the reality is that without a "Pedestrians may not Cross" barrier, all three examples qualify as unmarked crosswalks. Marked or unmarked, encouraged or not, a crosswalk exists across all extremes of an intersection unless designated by a sign or similar device. As the agency in charge of the project (City of Fort Collins) does not have any signage or similar device prohibiting pedestrians from crossing in the same way that a median prohibits vehicles from crossing, an unmarked crosswalk exists.

Now, this is where discrimination issues arise. As previously stated, the ADA requires every crosswalk to be accessible with curb cuts and an unobstructed path, which each of the three examples cited (amongst others) lack on one or more unmarked crosswalks. If a crosswalk is established as existing under state law by the absence of conflicting signage or the like, and as the Americans with Disabilities Act requires said crosswalks to be accessible under federal law, then the absence of curb cuts and assorted features may possibly be construed as a violation of the ADA, and the Civil Rights of people with disabilities.

Under the ADA, which strengthens civil rights for people with disabilities, the presence of an accessible crosswalk "nearby" (ignoring that it would take about 5 minutes more for a mobility-impaired pedestrian to use the currently-accessible intersection) is irrelevant; only the accessibility of the crosswalk in question is relevant. If a crosswalk exists, and if people without disabilities can legally use it, then it must be made accessible.

From a civil rights perspective, there is no fundamental difference between denying boarding of a bus to a potential customer of a certain race as the bus is restricted to members of a different race, with the next bus arriving soon open to all races, and architecturally denying the passage of a mobility-impaired pedestrian on the grounds that a crosswalk is nearby while ambulatory pedestrians are permitted to cross. Both situations involve a violation of civil rights; just as it is irrelevant if the next bus is accessible to passengers of all races if this specific bus isn't, it is equally irrelevant if the next legal crosswalk nearby is accessible to pedestrians with disabilities if this specific legal crosswalk isn't.

[jeffandnicole]

Then sue the city.  Don't know what else to tell you.

[vdeane]

In the first of those intersections, the sidewalks on the side street don't even make it to the road, so no unmarked crosswalks across the divided highway exist.  It's quite clear that pedestrians aren't supposed to cross there.  Ditto for the second one as no pedestrian accommodations exist on the side streets at all.

The third, you might have a case, but to me the median quite clearly says "you're not supposed to cross here", especially given that the side street with pavement markings DOES have a marked crosswalk.  The area looks like it would be very unsafe to cross without a traffic light.

[Kacie Jane]

As a crosswalk exists at every intersection (unless noted), and as turn restrictions do not change the basic definition of an intersection, and as the ADA requires all pedestrian infrastructure to be accessible, including crosswalks, it would thus logically follow that transportation projects would include curb cuts at all marked and unmarked crosswalks at all intersections, regardless of turning restrictions.

I don't want to pretend to be a legal expert, but I think the bolded might be the key.  Yes, an unmarked crosswalk is legally a crosswalk, but is it infrastructure?  My assumption would be that if they're not providing any infrastructure to help able-bodied pedestrians to cross, they're not obligated to provide infrastructure to help disabled pedestrians to cross.

(Also, the "otherwise noted"... you may want to double-check that there's not an obscure section of law that makes divided roadways automatically "otherwise noted", similar to how it usually alters the rules for school bus stopping.)

[cl94]

I don't know if this the case in other states, but it's de facto illegal in New York to cross a median except at a marked crosswalk or path. I know people who have gotten stupidity tickets for this. Actually, I'm pretty sure it's illegal for any non-official vehicle or person to be on a median here except when explicitly marked or signed.

The rule of thumb is don't cross a median unless there's a marked path. Engineering judgement can typically overrule such laws when implementation is dangerous or impractical. There are two options in this situation: face a possible ADA lawsuit (which has a good chance of being thrown out due to engineering) or risk someone dying because the crosswalk encourages them to cross a busy highway without the assistance of a signal. That being said, I'm pretty sure the ADA regulations on this only cover marked crosswalks or breaks due to a side street or driveway.

[Roadrunner75]

The engineers here don't need to lose any sleep over these examples.  They should be more worried about an ADA advocate dropping a smart level on the HC ramps and dinging them for some slope violations.

[Tom958]

The engineers here don't need to lose any sleep over these examples.  They should be more worried about an ADA advocate dropping a smart level on the HC ramps and dinging them for some slope violations.

Indeed. In my experience working for a concrete construction firm, civil engineers usually don't give a flying ratsass about ADA at crosswalks, leaving it to the guys who are actually building the curbs and sidewalks to coax something resembling accessibility out of an inherently inaccessible design. And that's often in the face of a client telling us to "build it per plan" whether it's legal or not. Oh, the sad stories I could tell. 

That said, in the first example (I'm too lazy to look up the others), the designer has configured the sidewalks in such a way as to imply crosswalks in the north-south direction but not east-west. To me it would be a good idea to paint zebra crossings in the north-south direction, but other than that I think the approach is the correct one.

[vdeane]

At NYSDOT Region 1, we have a few upcoming ADA upgrades on the project list.  One for NY 32 in the village of Menands should be getting design approval within a month (it includes resurfacing, a road diet from four lanes to two lanes plus a center turn lane, sidewalk upgrade/installation and crosswalk upgrade/installation).